Light Rail

About Joyce Clark

Contact information for Councilmember Joyce Clark
Home: 623-772-9795
Cell: 602-320-3422
Office: 623-930-2249
Please call between the hours of 9 AM - 5 PM
Email:
clarkjv@aol.com
jclark@glendaleaz.com
Joyce Clark is a 49 year resident of Glendale. She has a BA in History and Education and graduated from the College of Notre Dame of Maryland. Her past careers include teacher of high school history, small business ownership of a book store, a professional ceramist and was the founder of a retail craft gallery. Joyce and her husband, Charles, have three children and seven grandchildren.

Joyce was first elected as your Yucca district Councilmember in 1992 and served Glendale and the Yucca district from 1992 to 1996. Joyce took a four year break from public service when her mother was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s to personally care for her. In 2000 she successfully ran again for Yucca district councilmember as a write in candidate against the incumbent. She is the only candidate in Arizona to achieve a write in victory over an incumbent. She was your voice for the Yucca district for 16 years.

Joyce retired in December, 2012, and as a private citizen Joyce did many of the things she never had the time to pursue. Two of those are the tender care and feeding of her koi pond and blog writing on issues in Glendale, Arizona.

In March of 2016, Joyce announced that she would leave retirement and run for the Yucca district council seat in Glendale. Once again Joyce defeated an incumbent and on December 13, 2016 she took office as the Yucca district councilmember for another four year term, ending in December of 2020.

Joyce is the only elected official in the State of Arizona to have defeated an incumbent as a write-in candidate and then to defeat a second, different incumbent as a candidate.

So many of you who read my blog faithfully have asked for an update on my Koi pond and so, here it is. The pond is now 6 years old. In the beginning as a newbie, there were certainly a series of mistakes made.

When I saw my first algae in the pond I freaked out and added chemicals by the truck load. I created a toxic waste dump and all of the fish died. Disgustedly I vowed no more fish, drained the pond completely and let the pond rebalance itself for a year.

Feeling confident, I reintroduced Koi into the pond and they thrived. They are now quite big, sassy and very healthy. We now have about 30 Koi and as they continue to grow and thrive I imagine I will have to thin out the population. That is no mean feat as we know each fish. Some are very curious and brave while others are timid and shy. Even though they eat the same fare, some have certainly grown more quickly than others. The big guys and gals are the algae grazers. You can see them grazing among the rocks all the time.

Gone are all chemicals. Realizing that the original filter system was inadequate to deal with algae growth we researched and ultimately built an external, 4 barrel filter system. The pond water recirculates through the barrels each filled with different kinds of filter media. For example, one barrel has carbon pellets, another has fluffy polyester batting and yet another has sponges and the last has filter pads. The water remains crystal clear and when some algae does emerge during the hottest part of the year the easiest solution is simply to take it out by hand. There is never so much that the task is overwhelming.

We usually clean the external system once a year and will be doing that this coming January or February. It’s an all day job as the barrels must be drained and cleaned and new filter media placed into each barrel.

Over the years we have learned a great deal about plants in and around the pond. The lilies die back during the winter but come back with a vengeance in the spring. I would love to have some lotus. I have tried several times and in each instance I failed and they died.

I have learned that a pond plant called ‘Snowflake’ replicates itself like crazy. Every time I think I have removed all of it I discover another new crop. The same can be said for some plants surrounding the pond. Yerba Manza, Taros and Ruella grow and spread prodigiously. I’ve managed to get rid of the Yerba Manza completely. There is still one clump of Taro that will be removed this spring and all of the Ruella ‘babies’ will be removed as well.

If I had it to do all over again, would I have installed the pond? Yes, most definitely. There is something special about hearing the waterfalls splash downward. I have discovered when the pumps have been turned off for an electrical outage, the absolute silence is disconcerting. We watch the fish whenever we have time (as a councilmember my time is now very constrained) and we still take joy in watching them. I read somewhere, sometime, that watching fish in an aquarium or pond lowers one’s blood pressure. I think it’s probably true as there is a calming effect in just sitting and watching, really watching the fish. Is there maintenance work? Yes but nothing so intense that it consumes all of your time after the pond and plantings have become established.

Merry Christmas everyone and I hope you enjoy the photos I have included in this blog.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

Whew, It’s been a rough two weeks (since April 5th) with my blog site being down. My thanks to all of you who have patiently waited for its resurrection. I did lose some posts that occurred between March 11, 2017 and today. Thanks to the Word Press team and especially my genious grandson (majoring in IT) for solving the Gordion Knot of computer software enabling me to post once again. I know I will be throwing some money in my Grandson’s direction for saving my site.

What’s been happening in the meantime? On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 city council had another Budget Workshop meeting. Mostly it reaffirmed suggestions made by council at the previous budget workshop. One of my “asks” at the previous workshop was to consider moving up the proposal to transition the city’s street light system city-wide to LED lighting. This project would result in cost savings to the city of a half million dollars a year that could be redirected to providing greater dollar capacity to repair and maintain even more city streets annually. Council was presented further information and approved moving the project forward in the coming Fiscal Year rather than waiting until Fiscal Year 2023.

I was also successful in getting Heroes Park and O’Neal Pool back into the Capital Improvement Program. This is but a first step. If these items are not even listed in the CIP, it is impossible to secure funding for them.

Previously I had asked for consideration of returning funding to an upgrade of Pasadena Park that was pulled in favor of a new project, construction of a bike path at Foothills Park. I pointed out that council identified priorities were to maintain and improve existing assets before creating new projects. At that time Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff seemed to agree with that premise and was amenable to removing the new bike path project. On the April 4th budget meeting she seems to have reversed her position and now is reluctant to give up this new project. As many residents down our way are fond of saying quite often to me, “Them that has, gets more. Them that has nothing, gets nothing.”

The next several council budget workshops will deal with individual departments and their budgets. I am sure I will have questions…lots of questions. That’s one good aspect of having 16 years worth of historical memory…it helps me to identify in which areas of the city to take a good, long look.

There are a few more events about which I would like you to be aware. One is a neighborhood public meeting to learn about a proposed residential project to be sited at the southeast corner of 83rd Avenue and Northern Avenue. It will be on Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 6 PM at the Harvest Church, 8340 W. Northern Avenue. The applicant is seeking to place 50+ homes on 6,000 square foot lots…ugh.

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 6 PM I will be hosting another Yucca district meeting at the Coyote Ridge Elementary School Cafeteria, 7677 W. Bethany Home Road. Residents will have an opportunity to meet and to hear from our new City Manager, Kevin Phelps, and our new Police Chief, Richard St. John. They will stay for the entire meeting so that residents may introduce themselves and ask questions.

After those two speakers, there will be an informal meeting of the Parks & Recreation Board and the Library Advisory Board for the purpose of hearing a presentation from the Dick & Fritche architectural firm on a proposed design concept for our West Branch Library.

Following that presentation, as is normal for my district meetings, I will open the floor for residents to comment on the proposed library or any other topic. At the end of the formal meeting, please take the time to meet our City Manager and Police Chief.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

It has been 18 years and 36 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

February 11, 2016 will be the third anniversary of my blog. In these three years I have published 528 posts, received 2,261 comments and have had over 315,000 readers. It is linked with Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Path and Google+. These numbers are probably modest in the world of blogging but lately daily views are consistently in the 600 range and there are occasional days of 2,000+ reads.

I am proud of what I have accomplished. Having been a councilmember in Glendale for 16 years I have special insights into the goings-on at city hall coupled with many sources of fact as well as those offering pure speculation. There is no doubt, after 3 years, my position on a wide variety of Glendale issues is well known. I make no apologies for my positions on the issues important to you, residents of Glendale. I, as happens to anyone advancing an opinion, have developed a cadre of, shall we call them disenchanted… but you know what? That’s OK. At least they are reading my blog.

On January 21, 2016 I was surprised to read a Glendale Star editorial by Carolyn Dryer commenting on my blog. Here is the link: http://www.glendalestar.com/opinion/article_bb8b7eb2-c049-11e5-828c-5faf9edb2a8f.html . Ms. Dryer is correct in her assertion that I have blasted her, for I most certainly have. However, she said the following, “There’s a former councilmember who has her own blog. I’ll say her name: Joyce Clark. While I do not always agree with her, I have to give her credit for at least putting her name on her blog. You know who is writing the opinions. She is not afraid to put her name on it. And she has blasted me for articles I have written. But the difference between her and others who spew their opinions across the web is she is upfront, honest, and puts her name to whatever she writes.”

Ms. Dryer also made reference to a site that has concerned me for quite some time. It’s called the Glendale Guardian. It says it is, “Citizens oriented, fact-based, and community driven awareness network that works to ensure that our Citizens priorities our put first.” Sounds great, doesn’t it? The English used isn’t the best but the objective is to make you think it’s a well meaning, benevolent site. That is far from the fact. Its articles are selective and extremely biased. There is an agenda and it’s not hard to figure it out.

That would be perfectly OK if we knew who was behind the site but we don’t. It isn’t Sam Smith or John Jones because no one has the guts to acknowledge that he or she runs the site. Or as Ms. Dryer stated in reference to this very same site, “To those other anonymous “guardians” of the City of Glendale, you could take some honest lessons from people like Joyce Clark. If you want people to respect you, own up to your words. Do not hide behind the curtain of the Internet. Try putting your honesty to the real test. Let people know who you really are.”

Glendale Guardian administrator(s) have you no pride or respect for yourself or your site? What are you afraid of…the truth?

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Like this:

Jul 15

4

I rarely receive email criticism for something I have said in my blog. Usually criticisms come in the form of comments to my current blog post for all to see. When I have received an email of this kind I do not respond to the content but instead thank the writer, delete and do not accept any future emails from that sender. This time, I decided to share the email I received and my response. Here’s a peek inside my world.

I probably shouldn’t dignify your latest blog with a response, however I do feel compelled to point out a few things.

When your campaign, in 2012, was floundering and you were being railroaded by just about everybody else around town it was George, Bea, Darren, Larry et al that stepped up and supported you and gave hundreds of hours trying to help right the ship that was your sinking re-election campaign. They knocked hundreds and hundreds of doors, others help you put out your own mail pieces, stuffed envelopes and even make calls to prospective voters. They all did this at a time when no one else was helping you, not even yourself. I recall times when some of them would go out hitting doors and you were in your living room watching Cardinals football. I know for a fact that Bea & George’s business took a back seat to all the doings the summer / fall of 2012 including your campaign. Bea even was tailed by a nefarious individual that they can only guess was associated with your opponent.

Everyone made these sacrifices, YES because of the hockey team but also they believed in you and that you were fighting for the best possible outcome for the city when faced with some bleak choices. The ship was sinking in Glendale and all your colleagues were getting off the boat; however you choose to stay on the boat and the group probably felt that was admirable.

I just think you stepped way over a line by throwing them under the bus today and demonstrated a lack of class, I can’t help but think karma will come back on you somehow…maybe it already has…

I can’t even surmise what your motivations were other than you’re desperate to stay relevant, at least that’s what it looks like from my vantage point.

I’m sure your decades of public service has been beneficial to the City of Glendale, but to go out like this in such a classless manner probably taints all the good you have done for the city.

You have successfully made me lose faith in the basic human dignity because each and every one of those people that you threw under the bus deserve your basic respect as they worked their asses off for you. John Glenn

My response:

John,

I’ll first observe that your subject title is tremendously prejudiced. It implies that you consider all of my blogs to be “rants.” Then you proceed to write your own “rant.”

Let me point out that insults are not facts. George, Bea, and others, quite simply used me to access Greg Jamison at a time when he appeared to be the ultimate purchaser of the team. It was quid pro quo. They used me and I used them. Most involved were happy to champion me because I was in line at the time with the others voting to keep the Coyotes but they knew nothing of what I stood for or believed in. You used me while helping my opponent.

It was a difficult election cycle as my knee was bad and my doc forbid me from walking door to door. Many helped with that for qualifying signatures. As soon as the referendum action began the only persons who helped me were Dawn and Darren. I am eternally grateful for their help.

No one made “sacrifices.” Everyone had a motive. Each motive was different. In many cases, it was to be an “insider” after the Jamison deal was consummated. I remember Dawn relating to me that she had questioned you (as an active insider in the Democrat party) the day we met. She asked you about all the lies Alvarez and Chavira and the Democratic party were using against me and you replied, “that’s just politics.” I think your email to me is also your idea of politics.

You excoriate me for “crossing a line” so I assume you have taken the Coyotes group to task for their behavior too; those who regularly insult me, call me a raving lunatic and suggest they wish some kind of harm befall me, as you did in your comment about Karma – simply because of a disagreement of thought. My first and ultimate allegiance is to Glendale and keeping it a viable and vibrant community.

You are a very good Democrat, John. You know the strategy to malign and insult, call names and make outrageous statements like, “karma may have already gotten you” but perhaps not good enough to avoid being classless. Your obvious lack of respect for a female and one old enough to be your mother highlights you weren’t paying attention when your mother taught you manners.

Since this blog began the excoriation I’ve received because I have a different opinion has perplexed me. If people do not like what I am saying in my blog it’s really quite simple. They can acknowledge that I have changed my position; they don’t like it and are no longer going to read or follow me.

Larry Feiner’s and Bea Wyatt’s credibility as spokespersons for the current recall effort is a legitimate question for public consideration in the light of their own financial dealings. They willingly placed themselves there just as I have repeatedly done, and must now suffer the attention that comes with it.

Now, in the words of those you defend in calling me a “bitter, distraught woman,” you believe I have destroyed “your faith in human dignity.” I’m stunned that with your obvious lack of respect, you have bestowed me with the power to do something so dramatic. What a shame you laid that on me when you have so many other people from which to choose.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

There are times when you have read this blog and wanted to say more than a brief comment. From time to time I will post a Guest Blog. Here is another submitted by Bud Zomok, former Ocotillo district council candidate.

If you would like to submit a Guest Blog I ask the following:

Do not plagiarize. If you use facts or quotes, please cite the source

Be respectful…no hate filled rants, please

You must agree to allow me to edit if necessary. I will not change your opinion or content

Higher expectations for Politicians? by Bud Zomok

Having taken the time to read the post by Joyce Clark titled Aldama…maybe not, I was surprised by some of the responses submitted.

Let me take a moment to explain my surprise.

Mr. Van DiCarlo expressed comments about the policy currently in place by the county as “grossly unfair”. That may be the case but these are the current rules that the county has created and until those rules are changed one should expect politicians to follow the rules that have been established.

Mr. DiCarlo, you once expressed in an article as a candidate that you believe a candidate should represent the interests of the voters and not their own interests. I find that commendable as it means as a candidate one would to take the time to talk and listen to the voters in order to understand their interests.

Yet in your reply you make the following two statements, “could the two complainants be paving a way to step in as the official runner up” and “that you have little or no respect for those who attempt to get their nose in the door by exploitation.”

Exploitation?

It’s interesting that an attempt to have a politician follow the rules is deemed exploitation. And, did you have that same lack of respect for Mr. Aldama when he, too, filed complaints against candidates early on in the election?

I saw Mr. Aldama’s challenges as way of ensuring that any citizen who wanted to run in the Ocotillo District was actually eligible to run. I would assume Mr. Aldama would want to ensure he too is doing everything according to the required process in his current race.

I would pose one question to Mr. DiCarlo. Have you taken a moment to talk with either me or Mr. Hernandez before writing your comments? Doesn’t that fly in the face of your campaign statement? Didn’t you make comments based on your own interest or assumptions without checking the facts?

The letter submitted to the County and Attorney General was not submitted to require Mr. Aldama to stop his campaign. It was done to ensure he follows the rules set by the, city /state/ or in this particular situation, the county.

Surely you as a past candidate are not supporting the idea that candidates should be able to pick and choose what part of particular policy they wish to follow or ignore. As a past private investigator I would assume you must have had to follow specific rules in the investigative process and had you not followed those rules (even if you didn’t agree or did not know the rules existed) it would have possibly caused the information you secured to be ruled as not admissible.

Mr. DiCarlo, be assured I have moved on, but moving on does not mean one should turn a blind eye to the current requirements of running for any political position. If anything we should expect “any” citizen who runs for a political office to at least know the rules and follow them.

I hope we never get to a point where we allow our desire to replace an incumbent to translate into allowing politicians to pick and chose what rules/laws will apply to their campaigns. We are a country of rules and laws and if we don’t like those rules and laws then we need to work to change them, but choosing to ignore them should never be an acceptable option.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Yesterday’s blog entitled “Please delete this email after you read it” regarding Councilmember Gary Sherwood’s email resulting in an allegation of violation of the state’s Open Meeting Law created quite a bit of controversy rippling through the Coyotes world, Glendale’s political world and even the journalistic world.I suppose the reaction from the Coyotes world is the most predictable. As anyone would expect, the Coyotes fans are fiercely loyal and anything that raises the specter of the disappearance of their team from Glendale sends them into overdrive. Their first reaction is to kill the messenger. In this case that includes not only me but Mayor Weiers, the Glendale Star and the Arizona Republic. They denigrated Mayor Weiers for outing actions that may prove to be illegal. They gnashed their teeth over my blog and the newspapers’ articles because they perceived the information as yet another hit on their beloved team.

What they fail to recognize is that while the 4 councilmembers’ actions preceded a vote on the Coyotes deal, those actions could have preceded any council vote on any issue. The troubling issue for many people is not the outcome of the vote but rather the actions that preceded and led up to the vote. The allegation is not about the Coyotes. The allegation is about improper behavior by 4 councilmembers. An investigation by the AG’s Office will surely answer the question, did they collude behind closed doors prior to the vote? Did they conduct city business secretly to assure a positive vote? Why speak to the issue of a possible Open Meeting Law violation when instead fans can deride the messengers? Why is it alright to dismiss possible illegal behavior because it is associated with a vote on the Coyotes deal? It’s a case of situational ethics.

The reaction from the Glendale political world is also predictable. It was learned that when the email first came to light, Vice Mayor Knaack denied attending the meeting. However, that would never do and would not last long. It would have had Sherwood and Knaack as adversaries; something they can ill afford right now. Today, the explanation given is that Sherwood and Knaack were in the same car when they received a cell phone call from Woods. Two things are questionable about this scenario. Where was Sammy? After all, Sherwood in his email says, “Sammy is already on board as he was with us last night.” Even if you can swallow this car explanation, it doesn’t make the allegation go away. The Open Meeting Law says, “Splintering the quorum can be done by meeting in person, by telephone, electronically, or through other means to discuss a topic that is or may be presented to the public body for a decision.” Note that they are not denying the basis of the allegation. Are they trying to muddy the waters by responding to minutia such as where they were when the meeting of the 3 and Woods took place? It’s another case of situational ethics.

The reaction from the print world can only be described as fascinating. Yesterday afternoon, July 21, I received a phone call from Paul Giblin, an Arizona Republic reporter. He proceeded to express his offense that I dared to say that I had scooped reporter Peter Corbett and the Arizona Republic. He opined that my writing was done on the back of Peter Corbett who had made the FOIA request. He said that my journalistic standards were not as high as that of the Arizona Republic’s, and ended by saying; enjoy writing your little blog.

Later that day, I learned that Darrell Jackson of the Glendale Star had made the same kind of FOIA request. Who made the first request? Update: July 23, 2014. I learned today that Darrell Jackson made the original FOIA request over 2 weeks ago. Did Peter Corbett do his story on the back of Darrell Jackson? Isn’t it weirdly coincidental that 2 reporters made the same FOIA request? Even more interesting is who tipped them off to the Sherwood email and why? What was the source’s motive for doing so? Situational ethics once again.

As for journalistic standards…hah…that’s like the pot calling the kettle black. Arizona Republic readers have complained about the perceived bias in this paper’s stories for years; to the point that it has become legendary. Paul Giblin’s outrage is much ado about nothing. More situational ethics.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Like this:

Feb 14

11

Today, February 11, 2014 marks the first year anniversary of my blog with over 92,000 reads. There have been 218 posts with over 651 comments offered. I started writing shortly after I left city council on January 15, 2013. My motive was to provide you, the reader, information on Glendale issues from my perspective as a former councilmember. This forum has provided me the opportunity to write with no holds barred and no punches pulled. I am very grateful that I have been able to do so and surprised and amazed that so many have taken the time to visit my blog.

Your comments, generally, have been very insightful and thought provoking. I welcome any and all comments as long as they are respectful. So, if you have never commented, give it a shot. Nearly 100 people have signed up for email notification each time I post. If you would like to know when I have posted, check the upper right side of this column to sign up.

My informal polls have been very popular. When they began only a few would take the time to vote on the question posed. Now a hundred or more respondents will vote on the latest poll offered. The poll question can be found to the left of this column. When I reach 400 respondents the poll would qualify as a survey. Often that is the statistical sample number used by political survey firms.

My deepest gratitude and thanks goes out to each and every one of you who visited my blog in the past year. Without your interest in Glendale and its issues there would be no incentive to write about them. Your continued interest demonstrates that people are hungry for a different point of view other than which is offered by the usual media sources.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Like this:

Apr 13

4

Fourteen years ago, in 1999, I wrote opinion pieces on Glendale issues for the Arizona Republic for the princely sum of $50 an article. I had a great time doing it. I was no longer on Council and was taking time off to care for my Mother who had Alzheimer’s. In October, 1999, I wrote a piece about the upcoming City bond election and the $24M slated to build a public safety training facility. I questioned the need with facts at my disposal. After the article appeared I received veiled threats from just one group…firefighters. They were obviously not happy that I suggested that this facility was not needed back then. Seven years later, they won the war and $6M in funding dollars for the soon-to-be constructed West Branch Library were diverted to help defray the cost of construction of the public safety facility (estimated to come in at over $40M).

Several days ago I posted “Gimme more” on this blog site. Today I received the following email response:

Author : FirefighterXXX (IP: 68.2.248.248 , ip68-2-248-248.ph.ph.cox.net)
E-mail : Ilvjerry@hotmail.com
URL :
Whois : http://whois.arin.net/rest/ip/68.2.248.248
Comment:Great Idea Joyce about cutting fire staffing. I sent you link to Mayor XXX in XXX were my family lives. I think this will be a great idea for XXX as well. Maybe I will send you link to the Fire Chief too.

I have a son who is a firefighter in a Valley city. The email sender used my son’s name and the city in which he is employed. For obvious reasons I have x-ed out that information. The reference is to the fact that in this time of financial upheaval for the city I do not support adding more personnel to any department when the city should, in fact, be cutting its expenses to meet its revenues. In my article I did not suggest that any public safety personnel should be cut. I did ask that we hold the line with what we have right now until revenues improve and the city can legitimately afford to hire more public safety personnel. The sender is suggesting in retaliation, that my son, working in another Valley community should be fired.

I am fightin’ mad and am calling this lily livered coward out on his/her veiled threat. I am older and wiser than I was in 1999 when similar threats were made to me and my family. There is nothing like sunlight to disinfect garbage. I will bet that the sender is a union firefighter or a family member of one living in the Avondale area but perhaps working in Glendale. The email address is bogus because he/she doesn’t have the guts to use his/her real name or email address. Is that because he/she could be in legal trouble if he/she did so? Finding the exact address would require litigation and a demand for the logs from Cox. It would be difficult but not impossible.

There are thugs and cowards in every demographic and segment of our society. We all know that and some of us have experienced their intimidation and threats. Bloggers, journalists, elected officials and high profile people have. I am tired of the fire union using their thugs and cowards to do their dirty work. If you want to come after me because you don’t like my opinions by all means, feel free to do so. Anyone is invited to do so in a respectful dialogue between us. I can certainly take care of myself. But the SOB who goes after any of my family members had better watch out. Is that a threat? You bet it is…but not the same kind as you made.

On the evening of April 1, 2013, the City made a public presentation of the state of its budget to the public. If you include myself and the councilmember representing our area there were a total of 5 people in attendance. That’s right. Three citizens and us. How embarrassing for the councilmember. Oh, but that’s OK. His only constituency these days is the fire fighters union.

In terms of city staff, it would be safe to say the citizens were outnumbered at least 3 to 1. There was at least 20-25 staff in attendance. Every director of every department was on hand to answer the flood of citizen questions (not), in addition to 2 of Glendale’s cable channel 11 TV crew filming the non-event. It almost begs the question as to why doesn’t the city ask the general public to RSVP? If a minimum number of citizens respond, the meeting is held. If only 2 or 3 respond, the meeting could be cancelled. After all if the public meeting had been cancelled, it would have only required calls to 3 people.

These staff members are salaried and not paid time and a half for extra duties such as attending this meeting. These salaried personnel, if they so choose, can compensate themselves for the time by coming in to work a little later or taking a longer lunch break. It is an option available to them should they choose to use it. Many of them do not and put in more than a standard 40 hour work week.

Ms. Schurhammer, Executive Director of Finances, made a 15 minute presentation on the city’s budget. She concentrated on the city’s total Operating Budget by Fund and Department and the General Fund Budget by Department. She pointed out that 34% of the city’s entire budget and 63% of the city’s General Fund budget goes to Public Safety. There was virtually a silent scream from all non-public safety staff asking how much more does Public Safety need? We’ll get to that in a minute.

Back in December, 2012, both the Fire and Police departments had their respective budgets balanced and were prepared for a vote of approval from the sitting council at that meeting. However, Vice Mayor Frate made a motion that their budgets be tabled and brought up again when a permanent City Manager was hired. The vote was 6-1 with me being the lone, dissenting vote. That action left their budget departments” doors open just a crack. Now, sensing an opportunity, they are smashing open those doors with a fire truck and tactical vehicle. They sense blood in the water and this new council (led on this issue by Councilmember Chavira, a Phoenix firefighter) is willing to give them everything and anything they want. Chavira will take care of his brothers in Glendale and we can only guess that Phoenix Councilmember Danny Valenzuela (a Glendale firefighter) will take care of his brothers in Phoenix. Sweet, isn’t it? It has a nice, quid pro quo ring to it, doesn’t it? Note that the city does not have a permanent City Manager. Yet he will have to deal with the largesse that this council dispenses.

After Ms. Schurhammer’s presentation, Ms. Julie Watters of the city’s Media and Communications Department, led the meeting by asking if there were any public comments. Mind you, a citizen could not ASK a direct question, only comment. If anyone had a question, they were directed to talk to that specific department director after the meeting. This is a tried and true practice that Glendale has practiced for years and which I have hated for just as long. For you see, if the question is a difficult or uncomfortable one, the answer is made only to the citizen seeking the answer after the meeting. After all, the city wouldn’t want all those citizens hearing that awkward answer to that difficult question. Would it? It’s a divide and conquer strategy that I believe is unfair to the citizens of our community.

What were the water cooler musings? Several sources echoed one another. Much of it, dear reader, is old news for I have blogged about it previously. Nevertheless, here goes:

The Coyotes will be sold this month by the NHL.

The idea of 4 separate arena management contracts (you remember…hockey, entertainment, education and cleaning) still has legs and is not dead.

The general consensus is the Coyotes will be leaving Glendale as the city and the new team owner will not be able to come to mutually satisfactory terms on the arena lease management contract.

Or the other theory is that the team will stay in Glendale briefly (2-5 years) and then relocate.

This new council has no will to make the necessary and needed cuts over the next 4 years and likely will not sunset the temporary sales tax increase in 2017.

All departments will struggle to come up with adequate funding to support the hosting of the 2015 Super Bowl in Glendale. Further diminishment of citizen services may be the only way to fund the costs.

At the Tuesday, March 26, 2013 City Council meeting an agenda item will be a vote of approval to hire Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman & McAnally (HMPM), P.I.C., a law firm, to perform the special external audit this council has been craving. It doesn’t come cheap. The cost of this contract is $200,000. HMPM will subcontract out some of the work to Butler, FFG, and ESI. It is not clear from the staff report what would be the scope or responsibility of any of these firms. It is also not clear what their specialties are.

The costs per hour range from a high of $400.00 per hour for a principal to $100.00 per hour for a paralegal/law clerk. Simple math shows that the number of hours billable for this contract range from 500 hours (about 12 ½ weeks) to 2,000 hours (about 50 weeks). This exercise could be completed in 3 months to a year. I think we can expect it to be completed this summer.

This is not a budgeted item and is not included in the current Fiscal Year 2012-13 adopted budget. That means that the money will have to be allocated from somewhere in the budget. Look for the payment of this contract to come from the $17M set aside for an arena lease management agreement. By the time this council’s agenda is met we won’t see much of the $17M left to pay anyone to manage the arena.

Dick BowersCourtesy ofLinked In

A new Acting City Manager…

Expect at this same council meeting the hiring of Mr. Richard Bowers, former Scottsdale City Manager, as Glendale’s Interim City Manager until the search and hiring of a permanent city manager is completed.

A new Acting City Attorney…

Expect the council to approve Mr. Nick Depiazza, current Chief Deputy City Attorney, as the Interim City Attorney, until a permanent City Attorney is found and hired.

Budget meetings slated for this coming week…

On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 and Thursday, March 28, 2013, council will participate in two budget workshops starting at 9am each day. This year’s budget workshop book is a hefty 284 pages of reading guaranteed to entertain and delight. Just crank up your printer, go to the Glendale website, find the agendas under the City Clerk’s page and you can print your very own copy just as I did. If you know where to look you will be able to spot the shifts in policy based upon where this council allocates available resources.

Still looming is how this council will address the loss of $22M in revenue currently being earned by the sales tax increase slated to sunset in 2017. The general feeling among council is that the city will have recovered by then and will easily absorb the $22M loss in sales tax revenue. There appears to be no will to be fiscally prudent and continue with cuts in anticipation of that loss of revenue. If they do not have the will to make gradual cuts each year for the next four years, they will be forced by circumstance to make draconian cuts in 2017. It’s very simple; karma catches up to you every time.